Q for the Mods: Sharing my own reviews?

Do you people speak English? Spirit, ESL courses are cheap as fuck...take one...

This isn't about improving services, or freely exchanging information. This is about NOT exchanging information that others don't have access to. Period.

Last I heard in a discussion in area of the board that members can't see was...."it's ok". It's not something that everyone may agree with, but if it's between the hooker and trick who just fucked..."it's ok"


As for opinions, that's all this fucking board is, just a bunch of opinions and mine will be spoken LOUD and FUCKING proud whenever I choose....just like the rest of y'all

Then explain "it's okay" and keep quiet. The rest just adds confusion by the membership.

So what exactly "is okay" and what is not? You're obviously saying that you have the answer from the Staff area, so spill it...

That and the fact that this thread gave proof that the Houston mods are not all on the same page which backs up my theory that one might see something as an infraction, and another not. Or you can report a post for something, one says "yes it is valid report" and another say NO...

Consistency from the upper brass is a MUST! Originally Posted by Spirit13

You are correct Sir, Mods will never ALWAYS be on the same page...we do make the best effort to be but just as you have your opinion on things, we do as well.

This ain't a perfect world and it certainly ain't a perfect Hooker/Trick board

Of course we speak English.. we even type it.... and read it. But if this boards purpose is to exchange information about clients and escorts, then we are heading in the opposite direction.

If it is to not share information, then the ROS information should NEVER be seen to anyone.. not even the mods or fellow hobbyists .......

May as well NOT post reviews since by your thinking, information is NOT to be shared.

Then explain "it's okay" and keep quiet. The rest just adds confusion by the membership.

So what exactly "is okay" and what is not? Originally Posted by Wakeuр

Sorry...some are just not privy to such information. You should know that, with your Military background

Just for the record...you moderators should probably not speak your opinions until you get a ruling from Chris. If you have a ruling from Chris, then speak that and nothing else.

All this "go ahead and share reviews with providers" shit needs to stop unless that's the official determination from the admins...you're making yourselves look stupid...

Just sayin'... Originally Posted by Wakeuр

Or the opposite continue to do whatever until the owners address it. I contend even if the owners side with your interpretation it won't make a difference. Ladies and gents just wont say anything on the board. Fundamentally I believe I should be able to share my story with whoever I want to now if it is your story um no I doubt the owners will respond they love the clicks

You always this dense Spirit?

This isn't a "share all information with everyone" or "share no information with anyone" situation. As I said again...for the slow kids among us...this is about not sharing information that others don't have access to.

Tracking?

I'll keep it real and say I could give a fuck less if some trick shares his ROS with a Hooker that HE saw...I mean, they were both there right


Now, if that same trick cut/copy and paste ROS info from SOME OTHER TRICK's review playing WK to his Hooker princess letting her know what someone said about her then, yes, that's a problem....but that's me


Originally Posted by DickEmDown

Just my fucktard opinion but this is probably the best explanation of what I think is the "spirit of the rule"

If a guy gives any feedback to a provider after their session, good or bad, praise or coaching, and then he writes a review is it not a reasonable expectation on the providers part that he is going to say basically the same thing in the review, even if it's just about that part and not the whole experience, if he has written an honest review? Otherwise if a guy intends to write a review, by the letter of the law, he should have no communication or discussion with the provider during or after the session about the session.

Sorry...some are just not privy to such information. You should know that, with your Military background Originally Posted by DickEmDown

So the membership isn't privy to the interpretation of how the moderators here are going to enforce the published forum guidelines?

Please tell me that's what you're saying...because as much as I respect some, I'll bend any moderator over the rail, just like anyone else, on that one...

Please tell me that's what you're saying...because as much as I respect some, I'll bend any moderator over the rail, just like anyone else, on that one... Originally Posted by Wakeuр

See post #129 that Cat Daddy quoted me on....that is what I'm saying

I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that the mods are given some latitude of interpretation as long as it is consistent and defensible at a reasonable level. Umpires still call balls and strikes.

Fuck me! Am I defending mods?

And that's the official interpretation of the Houston staff on how the rule is going to be enforced?

Any reviewer can share his review ROS with the provider in the review.

That correct?

Why are you confused TA? I've already explained that the rule makes no distinction about timeline. It simply says that it is our responsibility to keep info restricted to those who have access to it. When the info was posted is irrelevant. Providers don't have access to review ROS info. He gave her, what would later become, review ROS info.

End of story. Originally Posted by Wakeuр

"What would later become". That's the key part. I'm not confused, we just have a reasonable and rational disagreement of principle here. Clearly, I believe that when it was posted IS relevant.

For example, in the middle of a session, I tell a provider, "Baby, that's the best blowjob I ever had." Later that day, while writing the review, I put in the ROS "It was the best blowjob I ever had, and I told her so."

Under your interpretation, I've just violated the rule. I hope you realize how fucking stupid it would be if that actually WERE a violation.

And that's the official interpretation of the Houston staff on how the rule is going to be enforced?

Any reviewer can share his review ROS with the provider in the review.

That correct? Originally Posted by Wakeuр

Nope...like Cat Daddy just said, that's my interpretation.